USA v. Real property located at 9445 Fruitridge Road, Sacramento, California, Sacramento County, APN Nos: 063-0060-045 and 063-0060-046
Filing
43
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 12/28/15: This matter is stayed until February 29, 2016. On or before February 29, 2016, the parties shall advise the court whether a further stay is necessary. (Kaminski, H)
BENJAMIN B. WAGNER
United States Attorney
2 KEVIN C. KHASIGIAN
Assistant U.S. Attorney
3 501 I Street, Suite 10-100
Sacramento, CA 95814
4 Telephone: (916) 554-2700
1
5
Attorneys for the United States
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
15
16
2:11-CV-01902-JAM-EFB
REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF STAY OF
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AND ORDER
v.
REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9445
FRUITRIDGE ROAD, SACRAMENTO,
CALIFORNIA, SACRAMENTO COUNTY,
APN NOS: 063-0060-045 AND 063-0060-046
INCLUDING ALL APPURTENANCES AND
IMPROVEMENTS THERETO,
DATE: N/A
TIME: N/A
COURTROOM: N/A
17
Defendant.
18
19
The United States of America and David Johns, Mary Johns, and Major Amos Nilson and Lucy
20
H. Nilson, Trustees of the Nilson Family Revocable Trust (hereafter referred to collectively as
21
"claimants") submit the following Request for Extension of Stay of Further Proceedings and Proposed
22
Order.
23
This matter was previously stayed on September 15, 2011, November 28, 2011, February 1, 2012,
24
May 1, 2012, August 1, 2012, November 1, 2012, January 30, 2013, April 30, 2013, July 30, 2013,
25
October 30, 2013, March 27, 2014, September 8, 2014, March 4, 2015, and September 22, 2015, based
26
on the on-going criminal investigation into marijuana cultivation at 9445 Fruitridge Road, Sacramento,
27
California (hereafter "defendant property"). To date, several individuals have been charged with federal
28
criminal crimes related to marijuana cultivation at the defendant property, Case Nos. 2:11-CR-002751
Request for Extension of Stay of Further
Proceedings and Order
1
JAM and 2:11-CR-00276-JAM; but neither David Johns nor Mary Johns, the record owners of the
2
defendant property, have been charged with any criminal offense by state, local, or federal authorities.
1.
3
Each of the claimants has filed a claim to the defendant property. Claimants David Johns,
4
Mary Johns, Major Amos Nilson, and Lucy H. Nilson have not yet filed their Answers and will not be
5
required to do so until the stay contemplated by this stipulation expires.
2.
6
7
The stay is requested pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(g)(1), 981(g)(2), and 21 U.S.C. § 881(i).
The United States contends that the defendant property was used to facilitate the cultivation of marijuana.
3.
8
It is the United States’ position that the statute of limitations has not expired on potential
9
criminal charges relating to the marijuana grow at the defendant property. Nevertheless, the United
10
States intends to depose claimants David and Mary Johns regarding their ownership of the defendant
11
property, as well as their knowledge and participation in large scale marijuana cultivation, including the
12
marijuana grow at the defendant property. If discovery proceeds at this time, claimants will be placed in
13
the difficult position of either invoking their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination and
14
losing the ability to pursue their claims to the defendant property, or waiving their Fifth Amendment
15
rights and submitting to a deposition and potentially incriminating themselves. If they invoke their Fifth
16
Amendment rights, the United States will be deprived of the ability to explore the factual basis for the
17
claims they filed with this court.
4.
18
In addition, claimants intend to depose, among others, the agents involved with this
19
investigation, including but not limited to the agents with the Drug Enforcement Administration and the
20
Internal Revenue Service. Allowing depositions of the law enforcement officers at this time would
21
adversely affect the ability of the federal authorities to investigate the alleged underlying criminal
22
conduct.
5.
23
The parties recognize that proceeding with these actions at this time has potential adverse
24
effects on the investigation of the underlying criminal conduct and/or upon the claimants' ability to prove
25
their claim to the property and to assert any defenses to forfeiture. For these reasons, the parties jointly
26
request that the matter be stayed until February 29, 2016, in accordance with the terms of this
27
///
28
///
2
Request for Extension of Stay of Further
Proceedings and Order
1
stipulation. At that time the parties will advise the court of the status of the criminal investigation, if any,
2
and will advise the court whether a further stay is necessary.
3
Dated: 12/28/15
BENJAMIN B. WAGNER
United States Attorney
4
By:
5
6
/s/ Kevin C. Khasigian
KEVIN C. KHASIGIAN
Assistant U.S. Attorney
7
8
Dated: 12/24/15
/s/ Brenda Grantland
BRENDA GRANTLAND
Attorney for claimants
David Johns and Mary Johns
Dated: 12/24/15
/s/ Douglas A. MacDonald
DOUGLAS A. MACDONALD
Attorney for claimants Major
Amos Nilson and Lucy H. Nilson
9
10
11
12
13
(Signatures authorized by email)
14
ORDER
15
16
For the reasons set forth above, this matter is stayed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(g)(1), 981(g)(2),
17
and 21 U.S.C. § 881(i) until February 29, 2016. On or before February 29, 2016, the parties will advise
18
the court whether a further stay is necessary.
19
20
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 12/28/2015
/s/ John A. Mendez____________
JOHN A. MENDEZ
United States District Court Judge
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Request for Extension of Stay of Further
Proceedings and Order
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?